A marriage is rendered void under the Hindu Marriage Act if one party is already married at the time of a subsequent marriage, which invalidates any compromise related to that subsequent union.

JUDGMENT :

JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 5.

2. This appeal has been filed seeking to set aside the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.03.2018 passed by the I Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Bengaluru in O.S.No.61/2014.

3. In the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff/appellant had sought declaration to the effect that she is legally wedded wife of first defendant and consequential relief to declare that the alleged marriage with defendants No.1 and 2 is null and void and eventually set aside the alleged compromise decree obtained by defendants No.2 and 3 in Crl.Misc.No.42/2012 dated 25.10.2013.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are being referred to by their ranking in the original suit.

5. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is that she is from a respectful family and belongs to the Vokkaliga community and native of Ayanur, Shivamogga District and she is working in HESCOM. Sirsi and is married to defendant No.1 who is by cast Gangamathastha on 29.04.1977 at Subramanya Temple at Sirsi and therefore the inter-caste marriage was also registered in the marriage office, Sirsi, North Kannada on 25.09.1982.

6. Defendant No.1 is stated to have retired as Junior Engineer from the office of the defendant No.4, that is the Executive Engineer, KPTCK, TL&SS Division, Court Road, Sirsi. From the wedlock of the plaintiff and defendant No.1, two children were born. First is a daughter by name M.N. Deepa born on 08.06.1981 and another son by name M.N. Pradeep born on 17.09.1982, both of them are married and living separately.

7. It was stated that defendant No.1 due to emotional blackmail of his parents and despite protest from the plaintiff was forced to marry defendant No.2 who belongs to the same caste as defendant No.1, on 29.03.1978. The second defendant was well aware of the earlier subsisting marriage of the plaintiff and defendant No.1. Out of the second marriage, two female children were born. It was stated that defendants No.2 and 3 filed one Crl.Misc.No.42/2012 before the V Additional Principal Judge, Family Court Bengaluru for maintenance by suppressing the earlier marriage of plaintiff. The same ultimately came to be compromised between them on 25.10.2013 and was disposed of. As per the compromise petition, defendant No.1 was forced to agree to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- from his retirement/DCRG benefit to defendant No.2 towards her maintenance and marriage expenses of her children. Defendant No.1 further agreed to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to defendant No.2 and also 40% of his monthly pension till her life. Further the aforesaid amounts of Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.3,00,000/- were to be paid to the defendants No.2 and 3 directly from his retirement/DCRG benefits immediately on its release from the concerned KPTCL authority. It was further agreed that thereafter, defendants No.2 and 3 shall not have any claims regarding maintenance and marriage expenses against defendant No.1.

8. It was stated that both the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are in financial distress as they are unable to own their own house and sites in all these years. Plaintiff recently suffered paralysis and other age related ailments and is under regular treatment resulting in huge medical expenses. It was stated that defendants No.2 and 3 had obtained the compromise decree fraudulently. Accordingly, the suit was filed for the aforesaid relief. In the written statement filed by defendant No.1, the fact of marriage with the plaintiff on 29.04.1977 was admitted. He stated that the plaintiff as his legally wedded wife and first wife and defendant No.2 is his second wife. He further stated that h